Home > Microsoft > Microsoft Ends Official Support for Alternative OSes with Virtual PC Microsoft Ends Official Support for Alternative OSes with Virtual PC Eugenia Loli 2003-11-03 Microsoft 51 Comments When Microsoft Corp. launches Virtual PC 2004, a Linux/BSD/Solaris/Netware version of the software won’t be along for the ride—at least not officially. About The Author Eugenia Loli Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker. Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli 51 Comments 2003-11-03 2:53 am Anonymous I came that close to buying this product when it seemed to be running BeOS sort of ok on x86. Guess soon I won’t be using Google either. It seems to be a sad fact that today you do business with one company you like, 5mins later they sell you out to somebody you don’t want to do business with. Same for banks, investment companies, cable company etc etc. I give up buying anything good. 2003-11-03 2:53 am Anonymous Why support competitors. This is clearly not in the best interest of the customer. It’s a good example of the need for open source software. 2003-11-03 2:54 am Anonymous Gee, A great Mac product gets the MS touch. Why am I not surprised and dismayed at the same time? 2003-11-03 2:59 am Anonymous Why stop using Google? I don’t have any problems with them or their service. Did something change? 2003-11-03 3:05 am Anonymous Josh, MS wants to buy Google, last I heard. Once they have their propaganda platform in place (search engines) – controlling the information that reaches millions of users – who knows what kind of ‘selective amnesia’ they will give to personal opinion of their products and competitor’s products and services found online. 2003-11-03 3:09 am Anonymous Shouldn’t you use google & support them so that microsoft can’t buy them out (if google makes more money, they’ll have a better chance of surviving). The way your talking, its like preemptive boycott’s of an unrelated party (like saying “don’t buy dutch food – the french prolly won’t support our next power grab”) 2003-11-03 3:19 am Anonymous I’ll keep using Google until it sucks. That’s why I started using it and stopped using Yahoo. Yahoo started to suck big time. Google didn’t. Easy choice. Now, if Google becomes crap, then I am sure another okay one will suffice. But again, if Google doesn’t become crap, no need. 2003-11-03 3:21 am Anonymous I have an iBook. I use linux. You don’t need Virtual PC. Heck, why use Virtual PC when you can run gentoo/debian/SuSE/.. directly in the PPC distributions. Same thing with some the BSDs. The only product that I think is really affected by this is people who want to run Solaris on Apple hardware. I am not a M$ supporter, but this seems to be a non-issue. Have you heard of anyone really using Virtual PC for anything other than running windows? 2003-11-03 3:34 am Anonymous This is really a non-issue because all that those OS’s were on the selection menu were pre-set settings for hardware layout that most of us changed anyways. I mean why are all you complaining this does not mean the end of Virtual PC for running linux it just means the end of a pre-set configuration for the linux. I guess we are just going to have to put up with setting our own disk size and adjusting the ram accordingly. Come on guys, most of you just seem like you want to complain about a non-issue, or some of you are just complaining and have never used the software so you don’t really understand how it works. 2003-11-03 3:50 am Anonymous Its funny that people are actually upset about this. All Linux people do is tweak the OS and try to get it running on everthing from cellphones to microwaves. If they really want to run linux on virtual PC I dont think they will need Microsofts “support” to do it. 2003-11-03 3:56 am Anonymous to the more grammatically correct “Microsoft Officially Stops Supporting Alternative OSs for Virtual PC” mod med down after if you wish. 2003-11-03 3:58 am Anonymous I can see this thing becoming to Longhorn what Classic is to Mac OS X, a simple compatibility layer for older applications. If nothing else, it would allow Microsoft to completely remove all of the legacy Win32/64 crap that’s been accumulating over the last decade or so. Sucks about the alternative OS support being dropped though. 2003-11-03 4:01 am Anonymous This is just so typical: Embrace & Kill. First buy it, then change as much as you can to turn it your favor; damaging it, killing it. Even this site mensions it http://www.euronet.nl/users/frankvw/IhateMS.html the same happened to RAV Antivirus recently http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/06/11/HNrav_1.html This used to be a good virusscanner… If Microsoft owns Google they own the search engine of a large number of internet users. I’m not sure what’ll happen then as ”killing”. But currently, they don’t, so why boycot Google when Microsoft says they want to buy it but there’s no deal nor response from MS yet? I won’t boycot, only after Microsoft does own them, _if_ that’s even gonna happen. OTOH finding alternatives is a good thing anyway, because diversity in searching on the web and knowing different ways to Rome is imo a good thing. Less dependance and more difference. http://www.dmoz.org seems pretty good. 2003-11-03 4:02 am Anonymous I wonder if Microsoft will also incorporate logic into the program that will prevent all non-ms operating systems to run…. It sure wouldn’t surprise me. 2003-11-03 4:04 am Anonymous Shouldn’t you use google & support them so that microsoft can’t buy them out (if google makes more money, they’ll have a better chance of surviving). The way your talking, its like preemptive boycott’s of an unrelated party (like saying “don’t buy dutch food – the french prolly won’t support our next power grab”) ——— I never said I don’t use google. I was simply answering a question. 2003-11-03 4:20 am Anonymous Google rejected the bid. Source: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/02/1067708070338.html 2003-11-03 4:25 am Anonymous I can see this thing becoming to Longhorn what Classic is to Mac OS X, a simple compatibility layer for older applications. This is why they they bought virtual PC. Its one of the few microsoft takeovers I’ve seen that actually has a real purpose besides killing the competition. I will jump on the bitch & moan train when they cancel the Mac version. You know they are going to. 2003-11-03 4:25 am Anonymous Well, I am not surprised. Let’s forget VPC and look at the competition. What is the current state-of-the-art for emulation software by other companies? 2003-11-03 4:27 am Anonymous “Instead, Microsoft is focusing on enabling Windows Server 2003 administrators to run Windows NT 4 applications on their updated servers” yeah right… Like someone would WANT to run Virtual SERVER on a server, wait.. it may be fast, but even so, it feels awkward, since i am used to seeing virtual PC be used as client software not SERVER.. beats me.. I am sure we won’t be buying it do deploy it on any on our servers soon. 2003-11-03 4:28 am Anonymous MS hasnt purchased google yet. I think the last response was “no”. I dont think google did their IPO. However, if they do go public then their stocks go to the highest bidder. Now imagine if MS does buy google. Then think about all the cool search engines we will loose. http://www.google.com/linux http://www.google.com/bsd http://www.google.com/mac http://www.google.com/microsoft (the most worst one). Not googles fault. Just MS related. Why did I list the above links? In case someone doesnt know about them. If they removed support from Virtual PC. Then what do you think they are going to do to these tools. Has anyone tried searching the MS web site with an alternative browser (not IE). It wont display any search results. However, using IE you will get a ton of results. The same thing will happen if MS buys google. Kiss a great seach engine good bye. 2003-11-03 5:43 am Anonymous Microsoft will not kill the Mac version of Virtual PC. First off they said they would not do that themselves, i don’t take MS at their word but if that wasn’t enough it would be the same as killing the Mac version of Office, they would essentially be killing off a good profitable section of their bussiness it just doesn’t make sense to kill something they are making money on. Secondly I use Virtual PC to test out other OS’s so I don’t have to waste time figuring it out on hardware and screw up. Yes OS’s can screw up like Red Hat for me that if you don’t tweak the resolution & color setting just right it totally screws up the UI and makes it so you essentially just have to delete it and try again. If it wasn’t for Virtual PC i probably wouldn’t be using Linux for the past 4 years in VPC and on good hardware. Also the story about Google refusing microsoft’s offer has been out for a while now, where have you people been? On a last note I hope someone comes out with an easy to use x86 emulator for Mac,Linux & Windows like Virtual PC. I downloaded Bochs, but couldn’t figure it out or get it to work especially when it says files are corrupted and crap like that. If this app is Open Source or not I don’t care, i think it would be better if it’s open source but an alternative to now Microsofts Virtual PC is better than no alternative at all. 2003-11-03 6:00 am Anonymous MOL could be a solution http://www.maconlinux.org it does exactly what the name intends it says; the other way around you currently do. It’s Free, licensed under the GPL. 2003-11-03 6:11 am Anonymous Theres always vmware, win4lin, etc 2003-11-03 7:19 am Anonymous ..neither of which run on the Mac 2003-11-03 7:26 am Anonymous Because OSX is based on unix, it should not be impossible for the community to produce a layer on which the binary would think its running on a mac and thus emulate the Windows software. An OSX layer if you will. In regards to internet searches, i already have Google’s replacement waiting in my bookmarks, Profusion.com. 2003-11-03 7:59 am Anonymous This is just MS-bashing. Microsoft just removed most non-Windows OS from the guide. You can still install whatever runs on a PC. It was good to have them in the guide, but it’s not the end of the world. The only thing I noticed the guide did for me was letting me know what minimum memory the OS should have. 2003-11-03 8:02 am Anonymous Mac users! Did you notice that we are discussing the PC version of Virtual PC? I haven’t seen any information about what any new Mac version will support or not. 2003-11-03 8:25 am Anonymous WinTel runs on Mac. http://www.openosx.com/wintel/index.html 2003-11-03 8:26 am Anonymous I don’t think you understand. You can run i386 LINUX, NETWARE, BSD on the MAC version. It is the same issue. 2003-11-03 8:49 am Anonymous Chee, anyone ever thought about Bochs? I heard a few times; Free, GPL and etc… But no-one even mentiones Bochs; it’s free, it’s GPL-ed and runs on nearly every os. I even got it running on an Sun Sparcstation 10 with Solaris 7 on it. It was a bit slow, but worked just fine. http://bochs.sourceforge.net 2003-11-03 10:14 am Anonymous >Chee, anyone ever thought about Bochs? >I heard a few times; Free, GPL and etc… But no-one even >mentiones Bochs; it’s free, it’s GPL-ed and runs on >early every os. I even got it running on an Sun >Sparcstation 10 with Solaris 7 on it. It was a bit slow, >but worked just fine. Thats just the point.. it’s SLOW… Virtual PC and VMWare both execute code through the processor, Bochs emulates EVERYTHING, no matter what tweaking you give Bochs, if it’s emulating, it’s going to be very slow compared to native execution… Quite candidly, the only thing about Virtual PC I care about is that it can run OS/2 Warp, which others can not… poor OS/2 people always get the short end of the stick… I just wonder how long until OS/2 is removed from Virtual PC 2003-11-03 11:36 am Anonymous I was waiting for such a move, no surprise ! MS wants to close the door to everyone that is in competition, except for Apple because 2% of the Market is not a problem. Other alternatives like Linux or BSD, maybe are getting more and more dangerous for them, that’s why they have closed he door… Anyway, what a compatibility ! To make old Nt Apps runs on XP 2003 Server you need Virtual PC…. ROFL. For us VmWare is a more viable alternative, as longle as uncle Bill won’t get his hands on that too. – only my two cents, – regards – Pasha 2003-11-03 11:36 am Anonymous It’s a shame, I use VPC to try out all the little hobby OSs written in assembly and stuff The old version still works OK, VMWare is better in a lot of ways, yes Bochs is far too slow and really tricky to set up. Virtual PC and VMWare both execute code through the processor, Bochs emulates EVERYTHING This is true on the x86, but VPC must emulate on Mac though. 2003-11-03 1:04 pm Anonymous On x86, VMWare is far superior anyway. Unfortunately, there is now a bit of a void on the Power architecture. I believe Bochs or Plex86 runs on Power. I’ll probably look into one of those at some point. Linux runs natively on Power anyway, and I don’t use Windows apps anymore except for games, which typically don’t run well under Connectix because of DirectX. 2003-11-03 1:18 pm Anonymous MS didn’t want Virtual PC for the market that Connectix was in. They wanted it for the technology. Thats why they bought it. They’ll keep the Mac side alive and optimize it more for windows because thats what 99% of the Mac users want VPC for, running windows. The windows version will see extensive changes and it will probably end up in the Windows OS at some point as a compatability layer. 2003-11-03 1:36 pm Anonymous VPC was good for a lot more than just running windows – It ran Linux, FreeBSD, OS/2 and lots of other stuff. You could test software on a platform that was abolutely immune to Linux and Windows problems or malware. Microsoft is wrecking a perfectly good piece of software out of sheer maliciousness. VPC *did* support Linux well; Microsofts motive is a monolpolistic strongarm tactic: Buy it and break it. There have been no news for VPC for Mac, but I have no doubts that it will be either forgotten or “improved” so it only runs software Bill wants you to run. PS: Linux for Power PC is no help, either. The great thing about VPC was that you could have a Linux without partioning your drive or rebooting. PPS: Is there any PPC Emulator that can run Linux PPC on a Mac without having to play with partitions? 2003-11-03 2:04 pm Anonymous the only thing about Virtual PC I care about is that it can run OS/2 Warp, which others can not… There is a product call twoOStwo (http://www.parallels.ru/2os2.shtml) which specifically targets OS/2. I have found it to perform well and have very good video & network support. 2003-11-03 2:34 pm Anonymous I hate to spoil the surprise, but who didn’t expect this? Come on, it’s MS we’re talking, like they’re gonna include something to run their nr.1 threat OS. 2003-11-03 2:44 pm Anonymous I tried installing Longhorn PDC in VPC 5.2 It took forever, and there was no sound and the video was 4 bit color in 640×480. The VPC sound card that is emulated is sound blaster 16. This type of sound card is so rare that Microsoft does not provide drivers for it 😉 The VPC video card that is emulated is S3 Trio32/64/64V+. This video card does not have 2000, XP, nor Longhorn drivers. These devices are normally bypassed by using the VPC Additions. This is mounted as a CD ROM via ISO image. However, they cannot be installed in Longhorn. 2003-11-03 2:51 pm Anonymous Yes, Bochs emulates all instructions. That buys you portability and flexibility. You can run Bochs on a Mac or from an AIX server. Both of which are not x86 machines. Yes, VMWare & VPC are faster because most instructions are executed directly. Some instructions are emulated – protected mode and certain devices. The trade off is that you can only run on a x86 workstation. In theory, in 10 years, when low end workstations are 100 THz, you should not be able to tell the difference between running Bochs and VMWare / VPC 😉 2003-11-03 2:55 pm Anonymous You can still run other OS’s under VPC. Microsoft is not going to kill VPC on the MAC. Why would they kill something that alows you to run more of thier software on your MAC. Are half the people here thick or is it like this: (to paraphrase George Orwell) Microsoft baaad. GNU-Linux and Apple gooood. 2003-11-03 4:08 pm Anonymous The VPC video card that is emulated is S3 Trio32/64/64V+. This video card does not have 2000, XP, nor Longhorn drivers. My sis’s comp has an amazing 1MB Trio 64, it seems to work OK with XP without third party drivers. 2003-11-03 4:29 pm Anonymous “except for Apple because 2% of the Market is not a problem.” First of all, Apple has more than 2% market share… 3.5% is what was last quoted. Second, market share is simply an indicator of the previous quarter’s sales… not the ratio of users of any given platform. Apple maintains approximately 10-12% install base. 2003-11-03 4:43 pm Anonymous VPC was good for a lot more than just running windows – It ran Linux, FreeBSD, OS/2 and lots of other stuff. I was able to run DOS 5 and every version of windows on VPC. Mandrake made VPC lock up during install on my system. I didn’t see it as a good Linux tester at all. Microsoft is wrecking a perfectly good piece of software out of sheer maliciousness. VPC *did* support Linux well; Microsofts motive is a monolpolistic strongarm tactic: Buy it and break it. Hey brainiac – they don’t want VPC to offer everyone a way to run any OS. Thats not why they bought it obviously. Blame Connectix for selling out if you want but hell, MS wanted the technology and they paid for it. That they want to move away from a market that you like dosen’t make them malicious. It means they don’t see real profit potential there and will not be pursuing that market. Its their software now. They bought it. Deal with it. 2003-11-03 4:56 pm Anonymous Microsoft paid for the technology. They are not in business to support any other OS be that by updating VPC to support new alternate OS configurations/releases, or customer support for alternate OSs on VPC. If anyone should be blamed it should be Connectix for selling out. Its a pity everyone starts foaming at the mouth instead of using common sense and business logic. 2003-11-03 5:02 pm Anonymous http://ranger.s3graphics.com/xplib/?license=accept 2003-11-03 5:06 pm Anonymous Instead of backward compatibility for their older OSs they offer virtual machine for them. I have never that anybody in the history of computing done something that stupid and arogant. They do not have a minimum respect for their customers, they are humiliating and making fools of them with offers like that. DG 2003-11-03 5:11 pm Anonymous hmmm…. don’t know what happened there… osnews spontaneously posted after I pasted link… That link is the offical supported XP drivers – there is no Trio anything. Furthermore, http://ranger.s3graphics.com/swlib/775drv/ is the link to all other drivers – they announce “S3 Graphics has ceased manufacture and sale of this product. S3 Graphics will no longer provide drivers for new operating systems or any other support for these devices.” I checked on both my XP and 2000 installation CD’s inf files to find that there is no support for Trio. It is possible that the VGA driver is more sophisticated in XP than Longhorn and that could account for XP being able to use some VESA modes of Trio, but there would be no hardware acceleration. It is possible that Microsoft felt that removing support for legacy video cards from their VGA driver will help to stabilize the operating system. If your sister’s company managed to get a hold of Trio drivers for XP, can you please get them posted to driverguide.com or any other web site where drivers are hosted? 2003-11-03 5:36 pm Anonymous Linux support in Virtual PC was not exactly stellar to begin with. VMWare is/was always better for this purpose anyway. Virtual PC was always developed specifically with Windows in mind, so with MS in control of it, that part of it will only get better. 2003-11-03 6:35 pm Anonymous Freedom is more important than practical advantages and money. This news only further convinces me of this. gnu.org/philosophy for more info. 2003-11-03 8:38 pm Anonymous Fair enough. I will wait to see what MS does. Sorry that I think poorly of MS as I just got beos running under 2003 server. Rather an odd purchase just to support a very limited group of people who must run NT apps but are being sold 2003. It can’t be just for that reason. It just doesn’t make any sense. They must be looking at a copyright issue they can avoid by offering a server running many virtual servers. That way you could really run a system that would restore it’s self in a few seconds from a copy.